Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Rahmân al-Khumayyis is the author of:
UsĂťl al-DĂŽn `ind al-Imâm AbĂŽ HanĂŽfa; Manhaj al-Ash`ariyya fĂŽl-`Aqâ’id; Manhaj al-MâturĂŽdiyya fĂŽl-`Aqâ’id; Al-TanbĂŽhât al-Saniyya `alâ al-Hafawât fĂŽ Kitâb al-Mawâhib al-Lâduniyya; Al-MajmĂť` al-MufĂŽd fĂŽ Naqd. al-QubĂťriyyati wa-Nusrati al-TawhĂŽd.
One of the latest Saudi pseudo-Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jamâ`a popelets of misguided auto-da-fĂŠs against the real Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jamâ`a, al-Khumayyis began his career with a doctoral thesis at the University of Muh.ammad ibn Sa`Ăťd entitled Us.Ăťl al-DĂŽn `ind al-Imâm AbĂŽ H.anĂŽfa which he turned into a 650-page brick he published in the same town, at Riyadh’s Dâr al-S.umay`ĂŽ, to once more hurl at the Umma the NajdĂŽ misrepresentation of the early Muslims, the Sacred Law, and the Religion as a whole, making them say the contrary of what they said. In predictable betrayal of the title, the book is only another self-absorbed, complacent manifesto of Wahhâbism by a WahhâbĂŽ promoted by Wahhâbis for the consumption of Wahhâbis. Among its aberrations:
– Al-Khumayyis claims that the seventeen Musnads of Imâm AbĂť H.anĂŽfa, Allâh be well-pleased with him, were compiled after his time and are therefore attributed to him unreliably. This is like the claim of the non-Muslims and their ignorant acolytes that the h.adĂŽth was compiled after the time of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace: what matters is not the time of the final compilation but the veracity of transmission and attribution, while it is established that setting pen to paper took place at the earliest stages of h.adĂŽth transmission from the Prophet himself, upon him blessings and peace, let alone from the Imâms of later generations such as Sufyân al-ThawrĂŽ, Ibn Jurayj, al-Awzâ`ĂŽ, or AbĂť H.anĂŽfa, Allâh be well-pleased with them.
The attack against AbĂť H.anĂŽfa the Musnid is enshrined in two lines of the TankĂŽl (1:214) originally written in refutation of Imâm al-KawtharĂŽ’s Ta’nĂŽb al-Khat.ĂŽb by the Lâ-MadhhabĂŽ WahhâbĂŽ `Abd al-Rah.mân al-Mu`allimĂŽ then rehashed by Muh.ammad `Abd al-Razzâq H.amza, Muh.ammad Nas.ĂŽf, and Nâs.ir al-AlbânĂŽ(1) in which al-Mu`allimĂŽ’s confused pen (and/or others) wrote of the MasânĂŽd of Imâm AbĂť H.anĂŽfa: “Most of the compilers of those MasânĂŽd came late, a group of them are accused of lying, and whoever among them is not accused has in his chains to AbĂť H.anĂŽfa, for the most part, narrators of undependable rank.” Such a statement is itself a litotic exercise in vagueness and unreliability since it backs its assertions with nothing, and the assertions themselves are so vague as to be meaningless.
One should also beware of the pronouncements of WahhâbĂŽs against early H.anafĂŽ narrators from AbĂť H.anĂŽfa, since their business is to discredit such narrations on principle according to their lusts and not on a scientific basis. This fact becomes abundantly clear when critics are faced with the inevitable question: What compilers do you mean exactly? The MasânĂŽd of AbĂť H.anĂŽfa, as listed by the h.adĂŽth masters AbĂť al-Mu’ayyad Muh.ammad ibn Mah.mĂťd al-KhwârizmĂŽ (d. 655) in his Manâqib AbĂŽ H.anĂŽfa, Muh.ammad ibn YĂťsuf al-S.âlih.ĂŽ (d. 942) in `Uqud al-Jumân, and Ibn T.ĂťlĂťn (d. 953) in al-Fihrist al-Awsat., are narrated with their chains by the following:
1. al-H.âfiz. AbÝ Muh.ammad `Abd Allâh ibn Muh.ammad ibn Ya`qÝb al-H.ârithÎ al-BukhârÎ.(2)
2. al-H.âfiz. AbÝ al-Qâsim T.alh.a ibn Muh.ammad ibn Ja`far al-Shâhid.
3. AbÝ al-H.asan Muh.ammad ibn al-Muz.affar ibn MÝsâ.
4. al-H.âfiz. AbÝ Nu`aym Ah.mad ibn `Abd Allâh ibn Ah.mad al-As.bahânÎ al-Shâfi`Î.
5. AbÝ Bakr Muh.ammad ibn `Abd al-BâqÎ al-Ans.ârÎ Qâd.Î Mâristân.
6. al-H.âfiz. AbĂť Ah.mad `Abd Allâh ibn `AdĂŽ al-JurjânĂŽ al-Shâfi`ĂŽ the author of al-Kâmil fĂŽl-D.u`afâ’.
7. AbĂť al-H.asan Muh.ammad ibn IbrâhĂŽm ibn H.ubaysh from al-H.asan ibn Ziyâd al-Lu’lu’ĂŽ.
8. Qâd.Î AbÝ al-H.asan `Umar ibn al-H.asan al-AshnânÎ.
9. AbÝ Bakr Ah.mad ibn Muh.ammad ibn Khâlid al-Kalâ`Î.
10. al-H.âfiz. AbÝ `Abd Allâh al-H.usayn ibn Muh.ammad ibn KhusrÝ al-BalkhÎ.
11. al-H.âfiz. Qâd.ĂŽ AbĂť YĂťsuf’s Ăthâr.
12. Muh.ammad ibn al-H.asan al-ShaybânĂŽ’s samâ`.
13. H.ammâd ibn AbÎ H.anÎfa.
14. Muh.ammad ibn al-H.asan al-ShaybânĂŽ’s Ăthâr.
15. Qâd.Î AbÝ al-Qâsim `Abd Allâh ibn Muh.ammad ibn AbÎ al-`Awwâm.
16. al-H.âfiz. AbĂť Bakr ibn al-Muqri’.
17. al-H.âfiz. AbÝ `AlÎ al-BakrÎ.
Each one of the narrators between each of the above scholars and Imâm AbĂť H.anĂŽfa is mentioned by name though not documented by al-KhwârizmĂŽ, al-S.âlih.ĂŽ, and Ibn T.ĂťlĂťn. Yet anti-H.anafĂŽs muqallids cling to the ijmâlĂŽ disparagement they find in the TankĂŽl without firsthand knowledge of the narrators. In addition, Imâm al-KawtharĂŽ and his editor in the Ta’nĂŽb, Ah.mad KhayrĂŽ, also mention five more MasânĂŽd which, unlike the foregoing ones, are no longer extant except for Zufar’s, narrated by the following:
18. al-H.âfiz. al-Dâraqut.nÎ, which al-Khat.Îb said he had in his possession in Shâm.
19. al-H.âfiz. Ibn ShâhÎn, which al-Khat.Îb said he had in his possession in Shâm.
20. al-H.âfiz. Ibn `Uqda, mentioned by al-Badr al-`AynÎ in his TârÎkh al-KabÎr and containing 1,000+ h.adÎths.
21. Muh.ammad ibn Makhlad al-DĂťrĂŽ al-Bazzâz, mentioned in al-Khat.ĂŽb’s TârĂŽkh Baghdâd.
22. al-H.âfiz. AbĂť al-Hudhayl Zufar ibn al-Hudhayl al-‘AnbarĂŽ’s Ăthâr.
– Al-Khumayyis claims that none of the doctrinal texts attributed to AbĂť H.anĂŽfa are authentically his except the `AqĂŽda of Imâm al-T.ah.âwĂŽ. This is an orientalist speculation which WahhâbĂŽs are only glad to endorse since it suits their hawâ. Al-Khumayyis himself shows that early H.anafĂŽ doctrinal works all have well-known chains of transmission but he chooses to discard them on the basis of his own specious discreditation of the narrators:
I. Al-Fiqh al-Akbar. It is narrated by Nas.r or Nus.ayr ibn Yah.yâ al-BalkhÎ (d. 268), from Muh.ammad ibn Muqâtil al-RâzÎ, from `Is.âm ibn YÝsuf ibn MaymÝn al-BalkhÎ, from H.ammâd ibn AbÎ H.anÎfa, from his father.
The above narrators are all truthful. Al-BukhârĂŽ alone declared Ibn Muqâtil weak – as mentioned by al-KhalĂŽlĂŽ in al-Irshâd – but without explanation, hence Ibn H.ajar dismisses this weakening as based on a difference in Madhhab and the fact that Ibn Muqâtil, like all H.anafĂŽs, was considered a Murji’.(3) Ibn Sa`d declared `Is.âm weak but this is also rejected as unconfirmed since Ibn Sa`d’s severity against the Kufans is known, and Ibn H.ibbân, although a rabid enemy of H.anafĂŽs, declared him “highly reliable despite occasional errors” while al-KhalĂŽlĂŽ graded him “truthful” (s.adĂťq). As for H.âmmâd, al-`UqaylĂŽ declared him weak then Ibn `AdĂŽ but their case is the same as Ibn H.ibbân and Ibn Sa`d regarding H.anafĂŽs. Hence, AbĂť al-Muz.affar al-IsfarâyĂŽnĂŽ declared this chain sound in al-Tabs.ira fĂŽl-DĂŽn.
II. Al-Fiqh al-Absat.. Its text is in catechetical format and differs from the first in content as well. Its chain contains al-H.usayn ibn `AlÎ al-Alma`Î al-KâshgharÎ and AbÝ Mut.Î` al-H.akam ibn `Abd Allâh ibn Muslim al-BalkhÎ who are both weak although their religion is beyond reproach according to al-Sim`ânÎ and Ibn al-Mubârak respectively. Al-Khumayyis confuses AbÝ Mut.Î` with AbÝ Salama al-H.akam ibn `Abd Allâh ibn Khat.t.âf, whom AbÝ H.âtim accused of lying, while he only declared AbÝ Mut.Î` weak.(4)
III. Al-`Ălim wal-Muta`allim. It contains a noted emphasis on the necessity of learning kalâm for the protection of one’s faith and the defense of religion, identical to Istih.sân al-Khawd. fĂŽ `Ilm al-Kalâm, which Imâm al-Ash`arĂŽ wrote after the H.anbalĂŽ AbĂť Muh.ammad al-BarbahârĂŽ slighted his Ibâna. It is at the very least a work by the student of Imâm AbĂť H.anĂŽfa, AbĂť Muqâtil H.afs. ibn Salm al-SamarqandĂŽ, and the first of its two chains adduced by al-Khumayyis is impeccable and formed of Imâms of fiqh up to AbĂť Muqâtil who is upright but weak as a narrator.
IV. Risâla ilâ `Uthmân al-BattĂŽ.(5) Undoubtedly written by the Imâm and narrated from AbĂť YĂťsuf, its chain is impeccable and comes through al-MarghĂŽnânĂŽ the author of the Hidâya (misspelled as “MarghiyânĂŽ”), AbĂť al-Mu`ĂŽn al-NasafĂŽ the Mutakallim, and other Imâms.
V. Al-Was.iyya. The chain adduced by al-Khummayis is similar to the previous one but he shows no knowledge that there are several Was.iyyas attributed to the Imâm, not just one.
The same Khumayyis also produced two books against the Ash`arĂŽs and the MâturĂŽdĂŽs, respectively entitled Manhaj al-Ash`ariyya fĂŽl-`Aqâ’id and Manhaj al-MâturĂŽdiyya fĂŽl-`Aqâ’id, which the Jordanian researcher Ustadh Sa`ĂŽd Fawda in his al-Naqd wal-TaqwĂŽm said were characterized by the following flaws:
– deep ignorance of the doctrines of Ahl al-Sunna wal-Jamâ`a; – inability to probe the issues in the way of the great mujtahid Imâms of kalâm; – confinement to taqlĂŽd without real understanding of Sunni `aqĂŽda; – sanctification of Ibn Taymiyya and his followers as part of the said taqlĂŽd.
The same Khumayyis also produced a thirty-five page libel he named al-TanbĂŽhât al-Saniyya `alâ al-Hafawât fĂŽ Kitâb al-Mawâhib al-Lâduniyya published by the same house, which he begins with an epigraph from another zealot of Wahhâbism, Mah.mĂťd ShukrĂŽ al-AlĂťsĂŽ’s (d. 1342) Ghâyat al-AmânĂŽ (2:14): “Al-Qast.allânĂŽ was among the extremists of the tomb lovers (al-qubĂťriyya) [!]. He affirms the intermediary of the polytheistic type (al-wâsit.at al-shirkiyya) [!!] by making an analogy between Allâh Most High and the kings of this world.” In addition to heinous envy of the Friends of Allâh, such a charge exhibits a Mu`tazilĂŽ type of disavowal of intercession and, what is worse, materialist disbelief in the realities of Barzakh established from the Prophetic reports through mass transmission.(6) {And you will find them greediest of mankind for life and greedier than the idolaters} (2:96).
Khumayyis then proceeds to list what he claims are mistakes Imâm al-Qast.allânĂŽ, Allâh be well-pleased with him, committed, in which list he himself reveals his ignorance of Qur’ân, Sunna, and Consensus. For example:
– He takes al-Qast.allânĂŽ to task for mentioning the h.adĂŽths in support of the desirability of visiting the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, in MadĂŽna and the ruling that it is among the greatest acts of drawing near (min a`z.am al-qurĂťbât). We have documented the former in our introduction to Imâm Ibn Jahbal’s refutation of Ah.mad ibn Taymiyya (AQSA Publications). As for the latter, al-Qast.allânĂŽ is only expressing the Consensus of Ahl al-Sunna, in addition to his remark that some MâlikĂŽs held the ziyâra to be obligatory, whether the materialists and intercession-deniers like it or not!
– He says that Imâm al-Qast.allânĂŽ, Allâh be well-pleased with him, said lâ yas.ih.h. of the h.adĂŽth “Whoever makes pilgrimage and does not visit me, has been rude to me” then, “despite this admission, he builds on this h.adĂŽth his claim that the visit of the Prophet’s grave is obligatory… how can they build their minor and major analogies and its results on a h.adĂŽth they admit to be a falsehood (bât.il)??” This criticism shows ignorance of the difference between the fiqhĂŽ application to a h.adĂŽth of the expression “it is not s.ah.ĂŽh.” – such as the identical expression of Imâm Ah.mad concerning the Basmala before wud.Ăť’ whose h.adĂŽths are only h.asan – and its preclusion from being used in absolute terms as if it were forged and “a falsehood”! As for the h.adĂŽth “Whoever makes pilgrimage and does not visit me, has been rude to me,” al-Dâraqut.nĂŽ narrated it in his Sunan and Imâm al-LacknawĂŽ in his marginalia on Imâm Muh.ammad’s Muwat.t.a’ (chapter 49: On the Prophet’s grave, upon him blessings and peace) said: “It is not forged as Ibn al-JawzĂŽ and Ibn Taymiyya said, rather, a number of scholars consider its chain fair, and a number consider it weak.”
– He takes to task Imâm al-Qast.allânĂŽ, Allâh be well-pleased with him, for adducing the saying of Allâh Most High {If they had only, when they wronged themselves, come unto you and asked the forgiveness of Allâh, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allâh indeed Oft-Returning, Most Merciful} (4:64) as a proof for the obligatoriness of visiting the grave of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace and not only in his lifetime the way the advocates of ta`t.ĂŽl would have it. Yet the ruling cited by al-Qast.allânĂŽ is the established understanding of the noble verse and found in the recognized sources for the Four Schools, among them:
Shâfi`Îs:
Al-NawawĂŽ, al-Adhkâr (Makka 1992 ed. p. 253-254), MajmĂť‘ (8:217), and al-Ăd.âh., chapter on visiting the grave of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace. Ibn ‘Asâkir, Mukhtas.ar TârĂŽkh Dimashq (2:408). Ibn KathĂŽr, TafsĂŽr (2:306) and al-Bidâya wal-Nihâya (Ma’ârif ed. 1:180). Ibn Jamâ’a, Hidâyat al-Sâlik (3:1384). Al-SamhĂťdĂŽ, Khulâsat al-Wafâ (p. 121, from al-NawawĂŽ). TaqĂŽ al-DĂŽn al-SubkĂŽ, Shifâ’ al-Siqâm (p. 52) and al-Sayf al-S.aqĂŽl fĂŽl-Radd `alâ Ibn ZafĂŽl [= Ibn al-Qayyim]; Al-HaytamĂŽ, al-Jawhar al-Munaz.z.am fĂŽ Ziyârat al-Qabr al-Mukarram. Dah.lân, Khulâs.at al-Kalâm (year 1204).
H.anafĂŽs:
Al-NasafĂŽ’s TafsĂŽr and al-AlĂťsĂŽ’s TafsĂŽr (6:124-128). Al-ShurunbulâlĂŽ’s NĂťr al-Ăd.âh.. Ibn al-Humâm’s Sharh. Fath. al-QadĂŽr (2:337, 3:179-180). Anwar Shâh KashmĂŽrĂŽ’s Fayd. al-BârĂŽ (2:433). Ibn `ĂbidĂŽn, H.âshiya (2:257).
MâlikÎs:
Qâd.ĂŽ `Iyâd. in al-Shifâ’. Al-Qurt.ubĂŽ, TafsĂŽr of verse 4:64 in Ah.kâm al-Qur’ân (5:265). Al-Nu`mân ibn Muh.ammad al-TilimsânĂŽ’s (d. 683) Mis.bâh. al-Z.alâm fĂŽl-MustaghĂŽthĂŽna bi-Khayr al-Anâm `Alayhi al-S.alât wal-Salâm. Al-ZurqânĂŽ in Sharh. al-Mawâhib and al-Burhân fĂŽ `UlĂťm al-Qur’ân. Ibn Qunfudh al-Qusant.ĂŽnĂŽ in WasĂŽlat al-Islâm bil-NabĂŽ `Alayhi al-S.alât wal-Salâm.
H.anbalĂŽs:
Ibn ‘AqĂŽl, al-Tadhkira. Ibn Qudâma, al-MughnĂŽ (3:556-557=3:298=5:465). Ibn Muflih., Mubdi’ (3:259). Shams al-DĂŽn Ibn Qudâma, al-Sharh. al-KabĂŽr (3:494-495). Al-BuhĂťtĂŽ, Kashshâf al-Qinâ’ (2:515=5:30). Ibn al-JawzĂŽ, MuthĂŽr al-Gharâm al-Sâkin ilâ Ashraf al-Amâkin (p.. 490) and his TafsĂŽr. Ibn al-Najjâr, Akhbâr al-MadĂŽna (p. 147).
– Al-Khumayyis overtly lies about the commentary of the h.adĂŽth master al-ZurqânĂŽ – whom he calls a H.anafĂŽ! – on Imâm al-Qast.allânĂŽ’s denunciation of Ibn Taymiyya’s innovation in forbidding travel to visit the graves of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace. He cites al-ZurqânĂŽ’s citation of Ibn `Abd al-HâdĂŽ’s defense of his teacher but leaves out al-ZurqânĂŽ’s own words directly following Ibn `Abd al-HâdĂŽ’s citation, in utter rejection of the latter’s excuses and in confirmation of the condemnation of Ibn Taymiyya as an innovator in the matter, per the JumhĂťr of the Ulema of the Three Schools and many H.anbalĂŽs as well such as the Shat.t.âs of Damascus. This is the very tah.rĂŽf the Qur’ân and Sunna attribute to the Ahl al-Kitab who changed the meanings of the Book, leaving out what runs counter to their hawâ.
– Al-Khumayyis quotes from al-AlĂťsĂŽ’s Qur’ânic commentary that the latter supposedly criticized “al-Tâj al-SubkĂŽ for rebuking al-Majd [Majd al-DĂŽn Ibn Taymiyya the grandfather], as is his habit” but [1] this is not Tâj al-DĂŽn but his father TaqĂŽ al-DĂŽn in Shifâ’ al-Siqâm, and [2] such a mistake is not from the hand of al-AlĂťsĂŽ the Commentator but from his WahhâbĂŽ successors who tampered with his book as exposed by Imâm al-KawtharĂŽ in his Maqâlât, since the original author distinguishes effortlessly between al-SubkĂŽ father and son in over three dozen passages of his TafsĂŽr, and he calls the father “Mawlânâ”! No doubt he would curse anyone who so offends Ahl al-Sunna as to call one of their foremost authorities a qubĂťrĂŽ since such disparagement is the unmistakable mark of heresy.
At any rate, the passage in question regards Imâm al-SubkĂŽ’s rejection of Imâm Majd al-DĂŽn Ibn Taymiyya’s endorsement of the position attributed to Imâm AbĂť H.anĂŽfa in prohibition of tawassul through the person of the Holy Prophet, upon him blessings and peace. We addressed this misunderstanding in our Four imâms and Their Schools where we said:
Imâm AbĂť H.anĂŽfa nowhere objected to tawassul but only – as narrated from AbĂť YĂťsuf in Kitâb al-Ăthâr – to the use of specific wordings in supplication, namely, “by the right You owe to So-and-so” (bi-h.aqqi fulâni ‘alayk) and “by the joints of power and glory in Your Throne” (bima’âqid al-‘izz min ‘arshik).(7) The reason for this is that, on the one hand, Allâh owes no-one any right whatsoever except what He Himself condescends to state on His part as in the verse {To help believers is incumbent upon Us (h.aqqun ‘alaynâ)} (30:47). On the other hand, “by the right owed so-and-so” is an oath and is therefore a formula restricted to Allâh Most High Himself on pains of shirk. Imâm AbĂť H.anĂŽfa said: “Let one not swear any oath except by Allâh alone, with a pure affirmation of tawh.ĂŽd and sincerity.”(8) A third reason is that the expression “the joints of power and glory in Your Throne” is a lone-narrator report and is therefore not retained nor put into practice, in accordance with the rule for any such reports that might suggest anthropomorphism.
Those that claim(9) that the Imâm objected to tawassul altogether are unable to adduce anything to support such a claim other than the above caveat, which is not against tawassul but against a specific, prohibitive wording in tawassul. A proof of this is that it is permissible in the H.anafĂŽ School to say “by the sanctity/honor of so-and-so in Your presence” (bi-h.urmati/bi-jâhi fulân). This is stated in the Fatâwâ Bazzâziyya (6:351 in the margin of the Fatâwâ Hindiyya) and is also the position of AbĂť al-Layth al-SamarqandĂŽ and Ibn ‘ĂbidĂŽn.
Even so, there is authentic evidence in [1] the h.adĂŽth of Fât.ima bint Asad,(10) [2] the h.adĂŽth “O Allâh, I ask You by the right of those who ask You (bi-h.aqqi al-sâ’ilĂŽna ‘alayk),”(11) [3] the h.adĂŽth: “O Allâh, I ask You by the joints of power in the Throne,”(12) and [4] the h.adĂŽth: “Do you know the right owed to Allâh by His slaves and the right owed by Allâh to his slaves?”(13) to support the permissibility of such a wording. If the above objection is authentically reported from AbĂť H.anĂŽfa then either he did not deem these h.adĂŽths authentic by his standards, or they did not reach him. An illustration of this is that AbĂť YĂťsuf permitted the formula “By the joints of power…”.(14) Further, the opposite is also reported from AbĂť H.anĂŽfa, namely, that he permitted tawassul using those very expressions. Ibn ‘ĂbidĂŽn said: “In the Tatârkhâniyya: The Ăthâr also report what shows permissibility.” Then he cites – from al-QârĂŽ’s Sharh. al-Niqâya, al-MunâwĂŽ quoting Ibn ‘Abd al-Salâm (cf. the very first of his Fatâwâ in the printed Risâla edition), and al-SubkĂŽ – further explanations that it is permitted, then he cites the fatwa by Ibn AmĂŽr al-H.ajj in the thirteenth chapter of Sharh. al-Munya that permissibility is not limited to tawassul through the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, but extends to the S.âlih.ĂŽn.(15)
– Al-Khumayyis rages at Imâm al-Qast.allânĂŽ for stating that one faces the Noble Grave when making du`â during ziyâra although this, too, is a matter of the JumhĂťr approving and condoning this as we have shown in our documentations of the exchange to that effect between Imâm Mâlik and the Caliph al-Mans.Ăťr and the ensuing positions of the Four Schools in our Four Imâms and Their Schools where we said:
The position is held by some of the H.anafĂŽ Masters such as AbĂť al-Layth al-SamarqandĂŽ and those that followed him such as al-KirmânĂŽ and al-SarrĂťjĂŽ as well as al-KamushkhânawĂŽ in Jâmi’ al-Manâsik, his commentary on Rah.mat Allâh al-SindĂŽ’s JamĂŽ’ al-Manâsik, that AbĂť H.anĂŽfa forbade the facing of the Noble Grave during supplication. However, al-QârĂŽ in al-Maslak al-Mutaqassit. – his large commentary on the same work by al-SindĂŽ – said: (1) Ibn al-Humâm said that it is belied by AbĂť H.anĂŽfa’s own narration in his Musnad from Ibn ‘Umar that it is part of the Sunna to face the Noble Grave and turn one’s back to the Qibla; (2) Ibn al-Humâm also said, “This [narration of Ibn ‘Umar] is the sound position (al-s.ah.ĂŽh.) in the madhhab of AbĂť H.anĂŽfa, and AbĂť al-Layth’s claim that his madhhab is the contrary, is untenable because the Messenger of Allâh, upon him blessings and peace, is alive, and whoever comes to someone who is alive, faces him”; (3) al-QârĂŽ added, this is confirmed by al-FayrĂťzâbâdĂŽ’s narration [in Sifr al-Sa’âda?] from Ibn al-Mubârak that AbĂť H.anĂŽfa observed al-SakhtiyânĂŽ do the same during the latter’s visitation.(16) Allâh knows best.
The same Khumayyis produced another 600-page brick entitled al-MajmĂť` al-MufĂŽd fĂŽ Naqd. al-QubĂťriyyati wa-Nus.rati al-Tawh.ĂŽd which he published at Riyadh’s Dâr At.las [!] and where he hurls insults and anathema at the Sunnis who visit graves and believe in the intercession of the righteous.
Such is the enmity to knowledge that movement promotes while they loudly pretend to defend the Sunna, and the Umma witnesses the continuing publication of their drivel helplessly. Yet, no sooner do we warn Muslims of the dangers of their institutes and websites in the West than their ignorant defenders accuse us of the very divisiveness and takfÎr they themselves have specialized in, alone among all the sects of the last two hundred years. There is no change nor might except in Allâh Most High. May Allâh Most High requite {every sinful, false one} with his just desert!
NOTES
1. As stated by Imâm al-KawtharĂŽ himself in the introduction to his counter-refutation, al-Tarh.ĂŽb bil-TankĂŽl and as indicated to me by Dr. NĂťr al-DĂŽn `Itr when I asked him about the TankĂŽl: “Which of the TankĂŽls do you mean? For several hands mixed their stamp to that of al-Mu`allimĂŽ.” I was also told by Wâ’il al-H.anbalĂŽ in Damascus that `Abd al-Rah.mân ibn Nâs.ir al-AlbânĂŽ told him that the reason al-AlbânĂŽ fell out with Zuhayr al-ShâwĂŽsh was over the royalties from the publication of the TankĂŽl which contained the (uncredited) alterations and additions of al-AlbânĂŽ.
2. AbĂť Zur`a said he was weak.
3. See our documentation of Sunni versus non-Sunni irjâ’ in our Four Imâms and Their Schools.
4. Al-DhahabĂŽ in al-‘UlĂťw attributes al-Fiqh al-Akbar to AbĂť Mut.ĂŽ’ al-BalkhĂŽ as mentioned by Shaykh Shu’ayb al-Arna’Ăťtt. in his edition of AqâwĂŽl al-Thiqât (p. 63) but he means the version known as al-Fiqh al-Absat.. The orientalists name the two versions respectively Fiqh al-Akbar I and Fiqh al-Akbar II cf. Watt’s Islamic Creeds.
5. We translated this letter in full in our Four Imâms and Their Schools.
6. See our translation of Shaykh al-Islâm fĂŽl-Balad al-H.arâm Sayyid Muh.ammad ibn `AlawĂŽ al-MâlikĂŽ’s writings on the topic entitled The Prophets in Barzakh.
7.Cf. al-ZabĂŽdĂŽ, Ith.âf (2:285), Ibn AbĂŽ al-‘Izz, Sharh. al-‘AqĂŽda al-T.ah.âwiyya (1988 9th ed. p. 237), Durr (2:630), Fatâwâ Hindiyya (5:280), al-QudĂťrĂŽ, Sharh. Mukhtas.ar al-KarhkĂŽ, chapter on detested matters.
8. Cf. al-KâsânĂŽ, Badâ’i’ al-S.anâ’i’ (3:8).
9. Cf. Ibn Taymiyya, MajmĂť’ al-Fatâwâ (1:202-203) and his imitators.
10. Narrated from Anas by al-T.abarânĂŽ in al-KabĂŽr (24:351) and al-Awsat. (1:152) and AbĂť Nu’aym in his H.ilya (1985 ed. 3:121) with a chain containing Rawh. ibn S.alâh. concerning whom there is difference of opinion among the authorities. He is unknown according to Ibn al-JawzĂŽ in al-‘Ilal al-Mutanâhiya (1:260-270), Ibn ‘AdĂŽ in al-Kâmil (3:146 §667), and al-Dâraqut.nĂŽ in al-Mu’talif wal-Mukhtalif (3:1377); Ibn MâkĂťlâ in al-Ikmâl (5:15) declared him weak while al-H.âkim asserted was trustworthy and highly dependable (thiqa ma’mĂťn) – as mentioned by Ibn H.ajar in Lisân al-MĂŽzân (2:465 §1876), Ibn H.ibbân included him in al-Thiqât (8:244), and al-FasawĂŽ considered him trustworthy (cf. MamdĂťh., Raf’ [p. 148]). Al-HaythamĂŽ(9:257) said: “Al-T.abarânĂŽ narrated it in al-KabĂŽr and al-Awsat., its chain contains Rawh. ibn S.alâh. whom Ibn H.ibbân and al-H.âkim declared trustworthy although there is some weakness in him, and the rest of its sub-narrators are the men of sound h.adĂŽth.” I was unable to find AbĂť H.âtim’s declaration of Rawh. as trustworthy cited by Sayyid Muh.ammad ibn ‘AlawĂŽ cf. MafâhĂŽm (10th ed. p. 145 n. 1). Nor does Mah.mĂťd MamdĂťh. in his discussion of this h.adĂŽth in Raf’ al-Minâra li-TakhrĂŽj Ah.âdĂŽth al-tawassul wal-Ziyâra (p. 147-155) mention such a grading on the part of AbĂť H.âtim although he considers Rawh. “truthful” (s.adĂťq) and not “weak” (d.a’ĂŽf), according to the rules of h.adĂŽth science when no reason is given with regard to a narrator’s purported discreditation (jarh. mubham ghayr mufassar). MamdĂťh. (p. 149-150) noted that although AlbânĂŽ in his Silsila D.a’ĂŽfa (1:32-33) claims it is a case of explicated discreditation (jarh. mufassar) yet he himself declares identically-formulated discreditation cases as unexplicated and therefore unacceptable in two different contexts! Al-MâlikĂŽ adds that the h.adĂŽth is also narrated from Ibn ‘Abbâs by Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr – without specifying where – and from Jâbir by Ibn AbĂŽ Shayba, but without the du’â. Imâm al-KawtharĂŽ said of this h.adĂŽth in his Maqâlât (p. 410): “It provides textual evidence whereby there is no difference between the living and the dead in the context of using a means (tawassul), and this is explicit tawassul through the Prophets, while the h.adĂŽth of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, from AbĂť Sa’ĂŽd al-KhudrĂŽ [see next note] constitutes tawassul through the generality of the Muslims, both the living and the dead.”
11. Hasan h.adĂŽth of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace, according to Mah.mĂťd MamdĂťh. in his monograph Mubâh.athat al-Sâ’irĂŽn bi-H.adĂŽth Allâhumma InnĂŽ As’aluka bi-H.aqqi al–Sâ’ilĂŽn narrated from AbĂť Sa’ĂŽd al-KhudrĂŽ by Ah.mad in his Musnad with a fair chain according to H.amza al-Zayn (10:68 §11099) – a weak chain according to al-Arna’Ăťt. (17:247-248 §11156) who considers it, like AbĂť H.âtim in al-‘Ilal (2:184), more likely a mawqĂťf saying of AbĂť Sa’ĂŽd himself; Ibn Mâjah with a chain he declared weak, Ibn al-SunnĂŽ in ‘Amal al-Yawm wal-Layla (p. 40 §83-84), al-BayhaqĂŽ in al-Da’awât al-KabĂŽr (p. 47=1:47 §65), Ibn Khuzayma in al-Tawh.ĂŽd (p. 17-18=1:41) [and his S.ah.ĂŽh. per al-BĂťs.ĂŽrĂŽ, Zawâ’id (1:98-99)], al-T.abarânĂŽ in al-Du’a (p. 149=2:990), Ibn Ja’d in his Musnad (p. 299), al-BaghawĂŽ in al-Ja’diyyât (§2118-2119) and – mawqĂťf – by Ibn AbĂŽ Shayba (6:25=10:211-212) and Ibn AbĂŽ H.âtim, ‘Ilal (2:184). Al-‘IrâqĂŽ in TakhrĂŽj Ah.âdĂŽth al-Ih.yâ’ (1:291) graded it h.asan as a marfĂť’ h.adĂŽth as did the h.adĂŽth Masters al-Dimyât.ĂŽ in al-Muttajir al-Râbih. fĂŽ Thawâb al-‘Amal al-S.âlih. (p. 471-472), Ibn H.ajar in AmâlĂŽ al-Adhkâr (1:272-273) and al-MundhirĂŽ’s Shaykh the h.adĂŽth Master AbĂť al-H.asan al-MaqdisĂŽ in al-TarghĂŽb (1994 ed. 2:367 §2422=1997 ed. 2:304-305) and as indicated by Ibn Qudâma, MughnĂŽ (1985 Dâr al-Fikr ed. 1:271). MamdĂťh. in his monograph rejected the weakening of this h.adĂŽth by Nâs.ir AlbânĂŽ and H.ammâd al-Ans..ârĂŽ.
12. Narrated from [1] the Companion Qayla bint Makhrama by al-T.abarânĂŽ in al-KabĂŽr (25:12) with a fair chain according to al-HaythamĂŽ (10:124-125); [2] Ibn Mas’Ăťd by al-BayhaqĂŽ in al-Da’awât al-KabĂŽr (2:157 §392) – Ibn al-JawzĂŽ in al-Mawd.Ăť’ât (2:142) claimed that it was forged as cited by al-Zayla’ĂŽ in Nas.b al-Râya (4:272-273) but this ruling was rejected by al-SuyĂťt.ĂŽ in al-La’âli’ (2:68); [3] maqt.Ăť’ from Wuhayb by AbĂť Nu’aym in the H.ilya (1985 ed. 8:158-159); [4] AbĂť Hurayra by Ibn ‘Asâkir with a very weak chain cf. Ibn ‘Arrâq, TanzĂŽh al-SharĂŽ’a (1:228); and [5] AbĂť Bakr in al-TadwĂŽn and al-Firdaws.
13. Narrated from Mu’âdh in the Sunan and Ah.mad save al-Nasâ’ĂŽ.
14. Cf. al-KâsânĂŽ, Badâ’i’ al-S.anâ’i’ (5:126).
15. Ibn ‘ĂbidĂŽn, H.âshiya (6:396-397).
16.Al-QârÎ, al-Maslak al-Mutaqassit. (p. 282), Ibn al-Humâm, Fath. al-QadÎr (3:180).
WAllahu a`lam.
GF Haddad
